At Donald Trump's inauguration as US President, a picture was worth a thousand words. Among all the heavyweights of the economy, Big Tech in particular is circling the new man in the White House like a moth to a flame. The deregulation campaign, orchestrated largely by Trump supporter Elon Musk, has met with such undivided enthusiasm among the pioneers of the data economy and AI revolution that some are already throwing the baby out with the bathwater in anticipatory obedience.

Big Tech has announced the 500 billion dollar Stargate Project for AI infrastructure. And the move by Meta boss Zuckerberg, who has already decided to introduce elaborate content moderation in the world's leading network jungle of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp with the stroke of a pen, comes across as another tangible knee-jerk reaction.

For the time being, it only applies to the USA; however, the globally scaled business model can hardly tolerate different standards in the long term, which would entail considerable additional administrative effort. Instead, the Meta group is seizing the opportunity to shed what it considers to be mere ballast. This is not just about a multitude of legal pitfalls that are automatically eliminated. The time-consuming moderation of content also employs thousands of employees who are therefore dispensable. In this way, the effects of deregulation on company profits become immediately apparent. The deregulation initiatives are also likely to lead to noticeable savings for competitors. Experts are talking about 35,000 jobs in the sector.

Under the previous US administration, the EU still had faint hopes that its example of legislation that takes Big Tech by the scruff of the neck in various areas, be it data protection, content on social networks or, most recently, artificial intelligence through the AI Act, might be followed. But it is now facing a balancing act. Should it give in to the chorus of critics who blame „overregulation“ across the board for the slow pace of innovation and dwindling competitiveness of the European economy? Or should it risk letting the effects of aggression and disinformation in social networks get out of hand?

The latter is not justifiable. Closing one's eyes completely to the socially questionable consequences of the „freedom of expression“ so uncompromisingly propagated by X owner Musk would be tantamount to political bankruptcy on the part of the state. It would mean allowing events such as the storming of the Capitol or right-wing extremist riots, such as those that rocked the UK last year, to drive us through a laborious process of damage limitation after the event.

Like the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act is a legal standard that has emerged after several years of analysis and discussion, with which the EU is setting standards that are also widely recognised globally as a reliable legal framework. It is therefore not appropriate to bow down to Big Tech, especially as Europe is by far the most important business region for these companies beyond their home market, which they will neither dupe nor turn their backs on.

Nevertheless, the EU must ask itself whether the endeavour to regulate with foresight is always appropriate for dealing with the digital economy. A hastily created legal framework for breakthrough a innovation such as artificial intelligence, which the AI Act represents, runs the risk of slowing down entrepreneurial initiatives at an early stage, and inhibiting technological developments in the EU. This might be true, but on the other hand, the authorities' ability to act concerning the effects of rapid technological changes has often lacked speed and determination – with the result that decisions and legal interventions were years too late for grievances to be resolved.